(click
on the small image for full screen image with captions. All photos by
author unless otherwise noted)

Fig. 1

The role of Newar carpenters (silpakār,
siṁkaḥmi) from
the Nepal Valley in decorating the interior "Gill Sans", "Gill Sans MT", "Myriad Pro", "DejaVu Sans Condensed", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif the gTsug lag khang,
Lhasa’s revered Jokhang, has been "Lucida Grande", "Lucida Sans Unicode", "Lucida Sans", "DejaVu Sans", Verdana, sans-serif recognized [1].
Traditionally, the Nepali carvings are dated about the middle of the seventh
century - perhaps 639 -, corresponding to the temple’s foundation
by the Tibetan ruler, Srong btsan sgam po (r. 629-649). While it is clear
that several other parties had a hand in the decorative carvings of the
temple, the relief carvings on the paired lintels above the portals of
the oldest chapels, some of their jambs, and certain pillars can only
have been created by Newars. In them they expressed the unmistakable aesthetics
that characterized their homeland, politically the domain of the Licchavi
dynasty - and sometimes Ābhīra Gupta - from about 300 to 850.
Indeed, in the India and Nepal volume of Buddhist Sculptures in Tibet,
von Schroeder discusses the Jokhang lintels purely as Nepalese works of
the Licchavi Period (vol. I, pp. 407-31).

A recent paper by Dr. Amy Heller purports
to offer specific Licchavi comparisons to the Jokhang chapel carvings.
[2]
But given the extensive range of choice from the sublime corpus of Licchavi
art, it is to wonder at the peculiar Licchavi — and even non-Licchavi
— examples selected for this purpose. Vishnu’s feet will hardly
suffice (even were they correctly dated), [3]
nor will a post-Licchavi sculpture do by labeling it "ca. 650"
[4]

Fig. 2

The latter sculpture adorns a fountain at
the temple of Vajrayogini seated on a hilltop above Sankhu village, a
few miles east of Kathmandu (Figs. 1-4). It was selected as an example
of Licchavi gaṇa, dwarfish figures popular as imaginary
supports for waterspouts and architectural members. However, stylistically
the sculpture is manifestly not a work of the Licchavis and lacking inscriptional
evidence would certainly be dated to the thirteenth or fourteenth century.
One observer, deeming it to be an “architectural fragment,”
even assigned it to circa seventeenth century [5].
However, in this case the sculpture can be dated exactly thanks to the
donor of the fountain; he recorded his gift on the side of the central
makara spout which the figures support (Figs. 1, 3). For the
welfare of his deceased parents and their descendants, the inscription
reads, he had the fountain constructed in the winter of 1168 [6].
Although the inscription is not on the figures themselves, an examination
of the fountain makes clear that they are an integral part of it, composed
in such a way that they appear to support the spout above them, a typical
gaṇa duty (Fig. 4). Since there are almost countless examples
of bona fide Licchavi gaṇa it is a pity that one of them
was not chosen instead (Fig. 5).

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

If one is searching for examples from Licchavi
Nepal to compare with the Jokhang carvings, an appropriate start would be
with the diminutive stone caityas peppering the Kathmandu Valley
(Figs. 6, 7) [7]. One of their
ubiquitous motifs, a pilaster with bracket capitals employed to compartmentalize
design elements, must have been popular with carpenters too. As an examination
of the lintel carvings reveals, they often used it in the Jokhang and for
the same purposes (Fig. 8) [8]. Many other motifs common to Licchavi art may also be discerned in
the Jokhang carvings.

Licchavi
reliefs also provide excellent comparisons; like the Jokhang carvings,
they feature diverse figures in rocky settings (Figs. 9-11). As a bonus,
one relief includes a female attendant adorned with tubular ear ornaments
(Fig. 10) like the Jokhang example mentioned by Heller [9]. As for joyous companies of music-making gaṇa
one need not go so far afield as Ajanta [10] since they
can be found nearer to Lhasa in the art of Licchavi Nepal (Fig. 12) [11]. [12]

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Since one of the principal issues of Heller’s
paper is to show that the Jokhang lintels were carved by Nepalese, it
would have been pertinent to compare them to Nepalese wood carvings, in
particular the remarkable toraṇa of Yetkhabāhā in Kathmandu
(Fig. 13). Although it is a work of the Transitional Period it reflects
certain of the Jokhang carvings, for example the upper lintel of the portal
of the Protector Maitreya chapel (Fig. 8). In each case the carvings are
divided into five panels separated by rocky formations (at Yetkha) or
by the characteristic Licchavi bracketed pilasters (the Jokhang). In each
of these compositions the central figure is a seated Buddha who, like
all the accompanying figures, is depicted within a rocky cave.

Fig. 9

Actually, the Yetkha toraṇa
is closer in time to the Jokhang carvings than previously thought. Hampered
by the gospel that no extant wood carving in Nepal predates the thirteenth
century — or at the earliest the twelfth — scholars usually
have adopted that dating for the toraṇa. [13]
However, as part of my research on the antiquity of extant Nepalese wood
carving, those dates can now be revised. Radiocarbon testing places the
toraṇa sometime between 900 and 1050. [14]
This date proves doubly interesting because it corroborates the tradition
that the monastery was founded in the reign of King Bhaskara Deva who
ruled the Nepal Valley from 1045 to 1048 [15].

Fig. 10

As the title of Heller’s paper indicates,
it is primarily concerned with the Jokhang wood carvings and their Licchavi
inspiration, but the author also briefly addresses the architecture of
the building which houses them. Although she recognizes that the “most
ancient section of the gTsug lag khang seems remarkably faithful
to the square form of ancient Nepalese models” she proposes that
its nucleus was actually a secular building, a residential Tibetan fortress-tower
like those traditionally associated with Srong btsan sgam po. [16]
This may be so — and others, as Heller writes (note 26), have thought
so too — but such a daring hypothesis deserves far more support
than is offered here. Although at the outset the author promises a discussion
of her idea, the only discussion appears in the these few words at the
end: “the four lateral chapels and the central sanctuary [form]
a sort of core tower around which additional chapels seem to have been
constructed later.” Meager as this “discussion” is,
it seems a lot to swallow. Where are the sophisticated drawings to support
the proposal? Where are the architectural investigations revealing physical
modifications of the core tower into a vihara configuration? What is to
preclude the existence of two buildings, one the secular palace mentioned
in the Tang Annals, and one, the temple, they did not mention? What evidence
to conflate the one with the other? These questions arise and many more.
If the author has answers we need them to better understand and assess
this startling hypothesis.

Fig. 11

The core tower hypothesis has a major impact
on the dating of the Jokhang wood carvings. If we accept the proposed
date of ca. 710 to 750 for the remodeling of a fortress-tower into a temple,
then the Newar-inspired carvings which decorate it must be similarly dated.
If they were indeed carved in the eighth century, then the Jokhang’s
fame as the repository of Nepalese Ur-carvings would be challenged by
those in Nepal that are now radiocarbon dated to the sixth-seventh century.
Then, too, what about radiocarbon testing in the Jokhang itself that establishes
a seventh-century date for the columns in front of the Jobo shrine? [17]
If so, can such evidence be ignored? Further, an eighth-century temple
would postdate the apogee of Nepalese direct influence at Lhasa when the
exiled court of the Licchavi Narendradeva refuged there in the 640s. [18]
Whether the company included a Nepalese wife for the Tibetan king, as
tradition affirms, is of little consequence. With or without her, the
presence of a large elite Nepalese entourage at the Tibetan court would
have been the most likely time to have introduced architectural and artistic
concepts of their homeland. [19]
Perhaps more sophisticated studies may prove the hypothesis sound and
the original gTsug lag khang is only an old fortress-tower refurbished
as a Buddhist vihara. But until otherwise shown, I think it would be prudent
to cling to a mid-seventh century date backed as it is by a considerable
body of evidence. [20] Finally, from a cultural viewpoint, it seems almost
unthinkable that those undertaking such an enterprise as the gTsug
lag khang would refurbish an old building rather than offering the
gods the sparkling altogether new one they would expect. Not much merit
there.

Fig. 13

Fig. 12

With this paper Heller has made an important
contribution in revealing the hitherto hidden friezes of amorous couples
above the doorway to the central chapel, the Jokhang proper, occupied
by the Jobo Rinpoche image. [21] From what can be observed in the published
sample, the carvings do not seem to reflect Newar art and thus open a
new channel of inquiry. Heller’s discovery that some of the lintel
panels can be moved and inserted elsewhere by virtue of interlocking edges
(p. 6) is also intriguing and could have important implications respecting
their dating.

It is distressing to write this critique,
but the apparent weakness of the core tower hypothesis reflects not only
my opinion but that of several scholars, Nepali and Western, who discussed
Heller’s paper informally in Kathmandu this past November. Because
the revised dating of the Jokhang’s initial construction phase impacts
my research on ancient Nepalese wood carving, it seems to have fallen
to me to open the core tower hypothesis to further discussion by a greater
circle of our peers. It is too important a subject, I think, to not get
it right.

Addendum: Since writing the above,
further corroboration of a seventh century date for the Jokhang is
provided by André Alexander's just published study, The
Temples of Lhasa (Serindia, 2005). As he writes (p. 54) "two
separate carbon datings place [a carved wood cornice lion] with very
high probability into Songtsen Gampo's time." So did the previous
test mentioned above. Thus, even if Heller's core tower hypothesis
should be substantiated, its enlargement as a vihara took place in
the seventh century, not the eighth as she proposes, and confirm the
traditional date of the Nepalese carvings which embellish it.

3. The Jalaśayana Vishnu at Budhanilkantha
is not “dated by inscription 643 A.D.” but was carved about 641,
a guess date based on two Licchavi śīlapatra, dated
respectively 640 and 641, which grant favors to the citizens who
dragged the huge uncut stone across the Valley (Slusser, Mary S.
and Gautama Vajracharya 1973: "Some Nepalese Stone Sculptures:
A Reappraisal Within Their Cultural and Historical Context,"
Artibus Asiae, vol. 35, nos. 1/2. pp. 84-87).

12. Typical of the guesswork that
characterizes the dating of Nepalese art, Pal assigns the threshold
of Figure 12 to the eleventh century and I think it is classic Licchavi.

13. Despite this convention, certain
that the toraṇa had to be older, I proposed to place
it about the twelfth century (Slusser, Mary S., 1982: Nepal
Mandala. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press. II,
Fig. 165). On the basis of carved struts which I had dated similarly
early (Slusser, Mary S., 1979: "Indreśvara Mahādeva:
A Thirteenth-century Nepalese Shrine," Artibus Asiae
vol. 41, nos. 2/3, pp. 185-225. Figs. 35-40), one scholar objected
that such dates were “doubtful” and proposed end of the fourteenth
century to the beginning of the fifteenth as more realistic (Rau,
Heimo, 1985: “Workshops of Traditional Newar Woodcarving:
A Stylistic Analysis,” Journal of the Nepal Research Center,
vol. 7, pp. 144-182. Kirtipur: Tribhuvan University. p. 15). The
revised dating was based on the assumption that everything prior
to 1350 had been destroyed by the Muslims who briefly raided the
Kathmandu Valley in that year.

14. I have been able to radiocarbon
test several other “thirteenth century” wood carvings with equally
surprising results to be discussed in a forthcoming work. The validity
of radiocarbon dating of wood has been questioned on the basis that
“an old beam” might have been used, thus skewing the date, and that
it would also be dependent on which part of the tree it was taken
from (Luczanits, Christian, 2005: "The Early Buddhist Heritage of
Ladakh Reconsidered," in Ladakhi Histories, Local and Regional
Perspectives. ed. John Bray. Leiden/Boston: Brill. p.84). With
respect to Nepalese wood carvings these misgivings may be laid to
rest. There are no old beams of sufficient size to be salvaged from
the typical Newar style building and if there were they could not,
and would not, be used. śilpakar affirm that they are
unable to do fine carving in old wood, using only the most recently
felled tree for that purpose. Further, it would be inconceivable
that they would offer the gods old, recycled material. If it cracks
later as it dries, no matter. Fresh flower offerings fade too. For
the moment the gods have been given the best and what happens later
is of slight concern. As for the C14 date being dependent on which
part of the tree the sample was taken, the sal tree (Shorea
robusta), the tropical hardwood typically used by Nepalese carvers,
matures at about one hundred years. The wood chosen for carving
lies between the heartwood and the exterior rings so would have
an age of approximately fifty years, a time span of modest effect
on a radiocarbon date.

19. Nepalese temples, it may be noted,
were not “rendered in wood,” as the author writes (p. 3), but in
brick with wooden details. Further, I am not aware that per se they
ever fulfilled “political functions.”